I'm in a spot and not really sure what, if anything, I need to do. I was wondering if anyone here has been to a dropzone where BSRs and FAA regs (major ones) were being violated and what did you do (?). Approaching the DZO didn't do anything but piss him off.

Without knowing the seriousness of the violations, the people who are concerned with such violations are:

FAA regulation violations should be reported to your local FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). Address and phone number can be found here.

USPA BSR violations should be reported to your USPA Regional Director. Check out this to find your RD based on state/region. I might suggest contacting your USPA RD first, as they might be able to put the violation into perspective, but if you disagree with them and feel strongly about it, then of course let your FAA FSDO know.

Also, your S&TA should be spoken to, as BSR violations are that individuals responsibility more so than the DZO. I've personally never had to report a violation, but in a sport where student safety could be at hand (in which students may not realize the danger that is involved in a violation that they aren't expected to know) some violations can be very serious.

Reporting violations is dangerous political ground. Tread cautiously. Start by asking local instructors why they are not following BSSs. Remember that USPA's Board of Directors can waive some BSRs. Your second step should be to ask the local S+TA. Your third step should be to ask the local DZO. Your fourth step should be to ask the USPA Regional Director.

Your last step should be asking the FAA. Generally the FAA does not want to be bothered by the !% of the population that skydives. If skydives are not endangering airliners or innocent bystanders, the FAA does not care. However, if you file a written complaint, they are obliged to investigate. Which consumes time and manpower they would prefer to chasing Al Quida.

Sometimes your only recourse is to tell the DZO why you are taking your money to his competitor.

Thanks for the note Andy, I may PM HooknSwoop anyway, but it should be noted that the DZ in question is NOT in Texas. Still, he may have some good advice for me.

There is nothing you can do.

The FAA doesn't care. The USPA is paid by the DZ's and doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds it. (The fox is guarding the henhouse). As you discovered, talking to the DZO just makes him mad. This is because DZO's aren't 'policed' by anyone and are used to doing whatever they want. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. (ego and money) Your peers either don't want to know (apathetic), don't want to make waves and keep quiet, or got sucked into the whole 'dropzones are a family' b.s. and wouldn't believe a FAR violation if they saw it firsthand. (It's like a cult mentality)

If we are dealing with ONLY the violations I witnessed first hand, we can start with these...

BSR section H, item 3 states that manned ground-to-air communications are to be present on the dropzone during skydiving operations.

BSR section K, item 2.d states that all students are to be equipped with a functional automatic activation device (AAD) that meets manufacturer’s recommended service schedule (this is also mandated in FAA regulations, section 105.43.c).

BSR section K, item 2.f states that a steerable reserve canopy appropriate to the student’s weight be provided.

BSR section K, item 2.g states that a freefall student must be equipped with a ripcord-activated, spring-loaded, pilot-chute-equipped main parachute or a bottom-of-container (BOC) throw-out pilot chute.

FAA regulations, section 65.111 clearly sets forth the criteria as to who can and cannot pack a main parachute.

FAA regulations, section 105.43 states that a reserve parachute must have been packed by a certifificated parachute rigger within 120 days before its use.

BSR section K, item 2.d states that all students are to be equipped with a functional automatic activation device (AAD) that meets manufacturer’s recommended service schedule (this is also mandated in FAA regulations, section 105.43.c).

BSR section K, item 2.f states that a steerable reserve canopy appropriate to the student’s weight be provided.

BSR section K, item 2.g states that a freefall student must be equipped with a ripcord-activated, spring-loaded, pilot-chute-equipped main parachute or a bottom-of-container (BOC) throw-out pilot chute.

If these regs are violated that is just plain scary. Be they law or not

BSR section H, item 3 states that manned ground-to-air communications are to be present on the dropzone during skydiving operations.

They don't have radio com with the plane?

In reply to:

BSR section K, item 2.d states that all students are to be equipped with a functional automatic activation device (AAD) that meets manufacturer’s recommended service schedule (this is also mandated in FAA regulations, section 105.43.c).

They don't have ANY AAD on the student rigs???

In reply to:

BSR section K, item 2.f states that a steerable reserve canopy appropriate to the student’s weight be provided.

What does this mean? They putting all the students out under 300's, or are they using 170's on first time jump students?

In reply to:

BSR section K, item 2.g states that a freefall student must be equipped with a ripcord-activated, spring-loaded, pilot-chute-equipped main parachute or a bottom-of-container (BOC) throw-out pilot chute.

What kind of deployment system are they using, exactly??

In reply to:

FAA regulations, section 65.111 clearly sets forth the criteria as to who can and cannot pack a main parachute.

What are they doing to violate this?

In reply to:

FAA regulations, section 105.43 states that a reserve parachute must have been packed by a certifificated parachute rigger within 120 days before its use.

They have four or five Sentinel AAD's shared between approx. 15 student rigs. Some of the student rigs are not equiped to install an AAD. The AAD's are NEVER used on student rigs until the student reaches freefall status (static line course) which would normally be their 5th jump.

Quote:

What does this mean? They putting all the students out under 300's, or are they using 170's on first time jump students?

For example, a student with an exit weight of 230lbs, jumping a 270 sq ft canopy with a 180 sq ft reserve.

Quote:

What kind of deployment system are they using, exactly??

Leg pulls with vinyl pouches.

Quote:

FAA regulations, section 65.111 clearly sets forth the criteria as to who can and cannot pack a main parachute. What are they doing to violate this?

I suggest calling the RD for the DZ in question. I have a feeling the RD already knows about this. I *think* this is a DZ that USPA is trying to get to comply with the rules and regs.

A couple of other comments:

It's ok for the radio operator to get a can of Coke during climb to altitude.

SL used to be considered an AAD. It's only the latest FAR revision that said they had to be on the reserve. The DZ may be a throw back dz to the early 90s and only a recent GM. It was ok then and probably still is today. Today's standards are higher than yesterday's.

On the students packing for other students. The 'supervision' part means that a rigger is available. It does not mean a rigger has to stand watch over each and every pack job.

I have a strong feeling that this dz is already being 'modernized' by the RD efforts. It may take a bit of time, but that would be better than what the DZ has been doing.

It is better for USPA to open a dialog with DZOs and 'convert them' to modern standards than to toss them out and have them stay in an early nineties mode.

Call the RD.

PS- About the Sentinels--- I do know of a rigger and former DPRE that would actually testify in court that it is negligent to use a Sentinel today, given all the other available AADs. Technically, you can use them, but from an industry standard practice, it's way below standards.

Given all the things you listed, I would ask for better AADs first before fixing the other problems. Sentinels actually meet all the rules.

I *think* this is a DZ that USPA is trying to get to comply with the rules and regs.

How? By asking nicely? Are you saying they signed the gm 'pledge' knowing full-well they were in violation of it? Seems hollow to me.

Quote:

SL used to be considered an AAD. It's only the latest FAR revision that said they had to be on the reserve. The DZ may be a throw back dz to the early 90s and only a recent GM. It was ok then and probably still is today. Today's standards are higher than yesterday's.

The latest revision is 5 years old now. Not really an excuse anymore that the regs were changed. Just because it used to be OK and legal, doesn't mean it is OK to do it now.

Quote:

On the students packing for other students. The 'supervision' part means that a rigger is available. It does not mean a rigger has to stand watch over each and every pack job.

Actually, it does. In the latest revision, the FAA added the word "direct" preceding supervision. This is to clarify that the rigger isn't just supposed to available, but actually supervising.

"(a) The main parachute must have been packed within 120 days before the date of its use of a certificated parachute rigger, the person making the next jump with that parachute, or a non-certificated person under the direct supervision of a certification parachute rigger."

Quote:

I have a strong feeling that this dz is already being 'modernized' by the RD efforts. It may take a bit of time, but that would be better than what the DZ has been doing.

The USPA considers it better to have a DZ violating FAR's and BSR's that is paying GM dues and requiring their jumpers to pay membership dues, than to have a DZ that is violating FAR's and BSR's? Hmmmm, figures.

Quote:

It is better for USPA to open a dialog with DZOs and 'convert them' to modern standards than to toss them out and have them stay in an early nineties mode.

The information is available to bring them out of the nineties, it doesn't take a RD to bring them that information. If they have not updated, and are not updating, it is by choice, not ignorance.